Leading "anti-obesity campaign" group is under fire over its "misleading" views stated in its new dietary advice which provoked serious bickering and threats. Britain's National Obesity Forum (NOF) is in turmoil over its last week's recommendations that people should eat more fat, stop counting calories and reduce carbohydrates.

The now controversial group faces a massive backlash from an array of prominent experts on food and obesity, who were threatened NOF's new guidelines. The recommendations might deepen public confusion on what to eat, refraining the battle against expanding waistlines which can also be dangerous to people with type 2 diabetes, the Guardian reported.

According to the Guardian, internal emails of this leading anti-obesity campaign group were seen by the Observer which divulge board members' anger because none of them was given the opportunity to approve the incendiary report before publication, excepting its chairperson, Dr David Haslam and his co-writers Dr Aseem Malhotra, NOF's cardiological adviser and other members including American expert on sugar Robert Lustig.

Meanwhile, Haslam told them on 12 May that he would seek their advice before the publication but did not pursue the consultation. The anti-obesity campaign group plans to issue a statement this week renouncing the findings that would leave Haslam in serious problems.

Public Health England told the Guardian that amid all the evidence, telling people to eat more fat, cut out carbohydrates and disregard calories is irresponsible. PH Chief Nutritionist Dr Alison Tedstone said that people who consume too much saturated fat could elevate their cholesterol level which could increase their risk to a heart attack or obesity. Addressing the public, British Dietetic Association cautioned that advising people to consume more saturated fat could be very dangerous.

But Haslam claimed that NOF board members were not left unaware before the guideline's publication entitled "Eat Fat, Cut The Carbs and Avoid Snacking To Reverse Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes." He said that some members were fully informed of the direction of the report and conferred evaluation it via email. Yet the urgency of publication intended no specific comments could be used prior to its release, the Guardian said.